See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282356184

From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back

Conference Paper January 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_22

CITATIONS READS

3 45

2 authors:

Athanassios Economou Sotirios Kotsopoulos

Georgia Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology
46 PUBLICATIONS 69 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 49 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GRAPE Shape Grammar Interpreter View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Athanassios Economou on 05 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back

Athanassios Economou1 and Sotirios Kotsopoulos2

1
Georgia Institute of Technology, USA; 2Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, USA

Shape rules and rule schemata are compared in terms of their expressive and pro-
ductive features in design inquiry. Two kinds of formal processes are discussed to
facilitate the comparison. The first proceeds from shape rule instances and infers
rule schemata that the shape rules can be defined in. The second proceeds from
rule schemata and postulates shape rule instances that can be defined within the
schemata. These two parallel processes mirror our intuition in design: the concep-
tual need to frame explicit actions within general frameworks of principles, and
the productive need to supply general principles with an explicit system of actions.

Introduction

Shape rules and rule schemata have always been at the center of shape
computation discourse [1], [2]. The algebraic foundations, mechanisms
and conventions underlying both constructs have been carefully crafted
over time and have provided a formidable framework for the study of vis-
ual calculation with shapes and design at large. Recently shape rules, par-
ametric shape rules and the rule schemata within which these are defined
have all been generously recast to provide a more comprehensive approach
to design formalism [3], [4]. Perhaps the most significant new idea is the
reformulation of the schema as an abstract symbolic expression that takes
on shapes in its variables. In prior discourse the schema was shape-specific
(parametric shape); all the shapes that were defined in this schema were
determined by an assignment of real values to the variables of the schema.
The new extended formulation of a shape schema allows for the represen-
tation of any parametric shape as an assignment to the variables of the
schema. Clearly the power of symbolic expressions in either side of a rule
to function as variables that can instantiate shapes suggests an entirely new

Design Computing and Cognition DCC14. J.S. Gero (ed), 1

pp. xx-yy. Springer 2014
2 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

way at looking at shape rules that nicely complements the existing visual
approach in shape grammars. A list of shape rules and a list of rule sche-
mata are juxtaposed in Table 1. Note that the list of shape rules and the list
of rule schemata are independent.

Table 1 Shape rules and rule schemata

Shape rules Rule schemata

x
x
x x
x t(x)
x t*(x)
x p(x)
p(x) x
x b(x)
b(x) x
x d(x)
d(x) x
x x+t(x)
x+t(x) x
x d(t(x))
x x+t*(x)
x b(b(x))
x x+t(x)
b(b(x)) x
x+tR(x) x+t(x)+tR(x+t(x))

The juxtaposition of these two representations of rules and the possibili-

ties they suggest when they are set one against the other is quite telling.
The key characteristics they foreground one emphasizing shapes, geome-
try and visual representation, the other emphasizing abstraction, and sym-
bolic/discursive perspective, together indeed suggest a rich structure to
be explored and contrasted. Intuitively the contrast between pictorial rules
and symbolic rules given in shape rules and rule schemata suggests the
useful dichotomy between visual and discursive symbols [5]. The analogy
is clear. Shape rules are given in terms of visual means including specific
shapes and other visual tokens as needed. Rule schemata are given in terms
of symbolic means including symbols, operations, and other indexical to-
kens as needed. Shape rules come as visual devices devoid of any struc-
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back 3

ture; shapes fuse and split in any way desired. Rule schemata appear as
conceptual devices devoid of any shape; schemata combine by sums and
products and are visualized by predicates and assignments (more on this
later in the paper). Furthermore, the symbolic forms that the recursive def-
initions of schemata assume appear all as atomic units that can combine in
specific and well-constrained ways a seemingly very different world
from the world of shapes and the constant fusion that shapes invite.
But there are more ways that we can look at these sets of rules. Perhaps
we could look at their usage and fit in creative design settings and in par-
ticular at their adaptation in studio, see for example [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
Clearly some designers do things (that is, draw or make three-dimensional
models) without being able to exactly describe what they are doing, i.e.
whether a specific action they do is a particular transformation or opera-
tion. Still other designers opt for a more systematic approach (that is, they
outline general principles of action) without knowing in advance how ex-
actly they will use them to resolve the problem at hand. In that sense the
usefulness of shape rules and rule schemata to capture specific actions that
designers do (formal composition as visual process) or general principles
that designers discuss of (formal composition as conceptual process) may
be quite rewarding to pursue. And similarly the ability of shape rules and
rule schemata to model formal strategies in design including bottom up
processes determined within explicit, narrow contexts, or top down pro-
cesses framed by open-ended principles applicable to wide variety of con-
texts, could also be rewarding to pursue. Intuitively, both types of formal
systems are deployed in design to solve particular kinds of problems in
spatial composition: shape rules are mostly deployed because of their visu-
al specificity; rule schemata because of their conceptual generality. And
still both shape rules and rule schemata are just alternative ways to de-
scribe the very same thing from a different vantage point.
The work here provides a tentative comparison between shape rules and
rule schemata and attempts to show how these two modes of visual com-
putation inform one another. A brief account of both forms of rules is giv-
en and a series of pictorial examples illustrate their similarities and differ-
ences. Both types of rules are seen within a general theory of
computational design structured around the notion of a design algorithm
<a, k> where the input a is information for construction and the output k is
the design description [11]. The account is necessarily fleeting and impres-
sionistic and it is used primarily as a scaffold for a brief examination of
both forms and the possibilities that each provides in design inquiry. The
account is structured around two vectors pointing from shapes to schemata
and from schemata to shapes. These two vectors are used here to structure
4 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

the discourse and to suggest possibilities for merging seeing and reflecting
in visual computation. The work concludes with a brief discussion of a
computational framework that facilitates both views of design inquiry
the pictorial redescription of existing shape rules as explicit assignments in
rule schemata and the modeling of rule schemata from scratch.

Two directions

The underlying algebraic framework within which the shape rules and the
rule schemata are defined, including the algebras of shapes Uij, the alge-
bras of labels Vij, the algebras of weights Wij, their combinations and the
ways all facilitate computations of all sorts, has been given in various
sources (see for example [1], [3], [12], [13]. The following discussion pro-
vides a brief overview of shape representation in shape grammars using
shapes in a Euclidean space, but it equally well applies to labeled shapes
and weighted shapes as well as parametric labeled shapes and parametric
weighted shapes. An extended discussion of the formalism and especially
the recent work on rule schemata is given in [3].

Shape rules
A shape rule consists of a pair of shapes. Shapes consist of four basic ele-
ments: points, lines, planes and solids and their combinations. The basic
elements and the shapes they define are readily described using linear
equations and higher degree equations and the resources and conventions
of analytic geometry. These descriptive devices are enough to capture all
shapes, from the rudimentary polygons and polyhedra described by linear
equations, to higher degree equations representing curves, b-splines,
NURBS and so forth. The basic elements are related one to another
through boundary conditions. A three-dimensional solid is bounded by
two-dimensional planes. A two-dimensional plane is bounded by one-
dimensional lines. An one-dimensional line is bounded by zero-
dimensional points. And the zero-dimensional points have no boundaries
(and no parts). Moreover, shapes are always defined in a Euclidean space
that has a dimension equal or bigger than the dimension of the basic ele-
ments that make the shapes the shapes are always parts of the Euclidean
space they are defined in. The structure is quite elegant: A solid can be a
defined only in a three-dimensional Euclidean space. A plane can be de-
fined in a two- and/or three-dimensional Euclidean space. A line can be
defined in a one-, two- and/or three-dimensional Euclidean space. And a
point can be defined in any dimensional Euclidean space up to three di-
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back 5

mensions. These elements combine to produce a generous structure of ten

spatial systems Uij, for i = basic elements and j = dimension of space, with
specific algebraic attributes [2]. The ten algebras of shape are presented in
Table 2.

Table 2 The ten algebras of shape

U00 U01 U02 U03
U11 U12 U13
U22 U23
U33

A shape consisting of lines and defined in the two-dimensional Euclidean

space in the algebra U12 is given in Figure 1.

`
Fig1. A two-dimensional shape containing lines

Any pair of specific shape instances A and B determines a shape rule. The
notation of a shape rule follows the convention of an arrow () separating
the two shapes, on the left and right hand side of the rule, with the addi-
tional convention of registration marks (+) to fix the spatial relation be-
tween them. An example of a shape rule is shown in Figure 2.

Fig2. A shape rule

Symbolically, for the two shapes A, B the shape rule is expressed as:

AB

Shape rules apply in a design process when there is a match of the rule
to a part of the design at hand. The left hand side of the rule shows the
shape that is matched in the design. The right hand side shows the shape
that substitutes the shape that has been matched by the left hand side of the
6 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

rule. If there is no match, then the rule cannot be applied in the particular
design context. More technically, for shapes A, B, C, the shape rule A B
can apply to a shape C whenever there is a transformation t that makes the
shape t(A) part of the shape C. If the shape t(A) is part of the shape C the
rule subtracts the shape t(A) away from the shape C and replaces it by the
shape t(B). The resulting shape C and the corresponding computation are
given then as:

C = [C - t(A)] + t(B)

The application of the rule is distinguished from the expression of the

rule itself by the convention of a double arrow (=>) showing to the left the
initial shape C and to the right the derived shape C, after the application
of the rule. The sequence of shapes (designs) generated by the rule A B
in the manner shown above is symbolically expressed as C => C => C
=> => C. The same sequence of shapes may be taken as a finite set
of shapes that all are productions of the rule A B. In this sense, the finite
sequence (derivation) of the shapes C, C, C,, C has as members
shapes that all share as their common property that they are all productions
of the same shape rule. All sequences of shape rule applications bring to
the foreground the compositional machinery (rules) used to produce the
design. For example, a sequence of applications of the shape rule in Figure
2 can generate a sequence of designs shown in Figure 3.

=> => =>

Fig3. A visual computation with the shape rule of Figure 2

Rule schemata
A rule schema consists of a pair of schemata. Schemata are comprised by
variables, and/or combinations of sets of variables. Specific parametric
shape instances can be determined when values are assigned to these vari-
ables by an assignment g restricted in some way by a predicate. The values
assigned to the variables are shapes consisting of points, lines, planes and
solids and any combination of them (as well as labeled and/or weighted
shapes). Different assignments define different shapes and additional con-
ditions can be added at will to define families of shapes with specific at-
tributes. On the other extreme, constant values may be assigned to varia-
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back 7

bles to define a single representation. For example, the shape in Figure 1

can be defined in a schema that is restricted by the predicate
g(S1): S1 is a triangle

the set of variables

S1 (L1, L2, L3)
L1 (V1, V2)
L2 (V2, V3)
L3 (V3, V1)

and the list of values of the assignment g

V1 (0, 0)
V2 (3.46, 2)
V3 (0, 8)

Clearly different predicates can change the attributes and the number of as-
signments on the schema, thus specifying different shapes. And further-
more, different assignments of numeric values to the variables can specify
different shape instances. Three shape instances for different assignments
are given in Figure 4. The assignments are: g1: V1 (0, 0); V2 (3.46, 2); V3 (0,
8); g2: V1 (0, 0); V2 (3, 6); V3 (0, 8); and g3: V1 (0, 0); V2 (0, 9.24); V3 (4.62,
8) respectively. The initial one is the one illustrated in Figure 1.

Fig4. Three different instances of the schema

Any pair of schemata can determine a rule schema. A symbolic expression

of a parametric rule schema is given as:

xy

Rule schemata are formal generalizations of rules that specify a particu-

lar treatment for an entire family of shapes instead of specific shape in-
stances. The variables in the pair of parametric shapes x and y are assigned
values by an assignment g, the properties of which are determined by a
predicate, specifying a certain class of shapes. When specific shapes are
defined by g the schemata x and y become the shapes g(x) and shape g(y)
8 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

respectively, and the rule schema is recast as a shape rule. Different con-
straints expressed in the predicate may lead to the formation of more or
less constraint parametric shape rules. The constraints determining the in-
stantiation of schemata to shapes do not affect the shape instances them-
selves, and do not determine how these shapes partake in spatial composi-
tion. Hence, visual ambiguity is preserved, shapes remain structure-less,
rules unconstrained, and their productions open to interpretation. This
makes descriptive (symbolic) precision and spatial (visual) ambiguity sim-
ultaneously possible in the same process of calculating. A symbolic ex-
pression of the resulting rule is given as:

g(x) g(y)

For example, the shape rule in Figure 2 can be defined in a rule schema
x x +t(x), whereas x is a parametric triangle and t(x) an isometric copy
of the parametric triangle in a specific spatial relation to the initial para-
metric triangle. Different rule schemata can be formed after spatial rela-
tions between any type of triangles, or parallelograms, trapezoids, quadri-
laterals, pentagons, hexagons and any other shape desired.
Rule schemata apply in a design process when there is a match of the
assignment of the parametric shape at the left hand side of the rule to a part
of the design at hand. If there is a match then the assignment of the para-
metric shape is substituted with the corresponding transformation of the
assignment of this shape in the right hand side of the rule. More technical-
ly, for parametric shapes x, y, and a shape C, the rule schema x y applies
to the shape C whenever there is a transformation t that makes the shape
g(x) for some assignment g that assigns values to the variables of x part
of the shape C. If the t(g(x)) is in fact part of shape C, then the rule sub-
tracts the shape t(g(x)) from C and replaces it by the shape t(g(y)). The cor-
responding computation is given as:

C = [C - t(g(x))] + t(g(y))

As before, the application of the rule schema is distinguished from the

expression of the rule itself by the convention of a double arrow (=>)
showing to the left the shape C and to the right the derived shape C, after
the application of the rule. The design process and the productions of the
rule schemata share the same conventions that apply in shape rule compu-
tation.
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back 9

Back and forth

There is a strong affinity between the two formal devices and a tension
too. The formal structure of both types of rules is identical. They are both
determined by a pair of things in a relation: a pair of shape instances in the
case of shape rules and a pair of schemata whose constraints and variables
instantiate shapes. Intuitively this extra layer of abstraction, involving
predicates and variables, suggests and invites a closer look.
The pivotal role and significance of predicates and variables become
evident when a rule is given in a recursive form. In this form the variables
of x and y may be recursively related to produce an indefinite number of
symbolic expressions that associate x and y in desired ways. For example,
if y and its variables in the right hand of the rule is a transformation t of x
and its variables in the left hand side of the rule, then the rule x y can be
rewritten as x t(x). Alternatively, if y and its variables in the right hand
of the rule is related through some operation, say a division d, with x and
its variables in the left hand side of the rule, then the rule can be rewritten
as x d(x). In general, if the variables of x and y can be associated
through some design operation f, then y becomes a function f(x) and the
rule schema can be rewritten in the form:

x f(x)

The question then is what are the possible operators f that can relate the
two variables of x and y in meaningful and constructive ways. Clear candi-
dates are: a) the transformation operation t; b) the boundary operation b; c)
the part operator p; and the division operation d. More could be envi-
sioned, but more productively, more could be constructed from those
through compositions and additions. A nice set of rule schemata to start the
discussion is found in [4]. The rule schemata presented there illustrate a set
of discrete design processes that can be taken individually, reversed when
possible, and combined under addition and composition. A list of basic
rule schemata and their inverses is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 A list of basic rule schemata

Schema x xx x t(x) x b(x) x p(x) x d(x)
Inverse x t(x) x b(x) x p(x) x d(x) x

The possibilities are bewildering. New combinations and products can

be produced to structure shape rules that can be defined within them and to
suggest new trajectories in design. For example, a rule schema like
10 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

x+tR(x) x+t(x)+tR(x+t(x))

could be very useful to account for the generative specification of a bilat-

eral or rotational growth of modular patterns. And any other combination
or product of variables might provide a useful structure to model shape
rules. Rule schemata appear indeed to have a generative power because of
their ability to form compositions and combinations in sequences that are
potentially novel and meaningful in terms of the shape rules that these
might be defined in. Still shape rules appear to resist the design interpreta-
tion that the rule schemata endow them. A constructive comparison be-
tween these two formal devices is briefly discussed below, in two sets of
exercises. The first looks at an existing shape rule and infers rule schemata
that this rule could be defined in. The second looks at an existing rule
schema and postulates shape rules that can be defined within the schema.

From shapes rules to rule schemata

The trajectory from shape rules to rule schemata is straightforward. In this

inquiry shape rules are considered as instances of particular assignments in
rule schemata, and in extension as pictorial instances of particular rule
schemata. Any shape rule from existing shape grammars and any shape
rule constructed from scratch could do to illustrate this inference. A nice
set of shape rules to start the discussion is found in [14]. The shape rules
presented in this work are divided in two sets. The first intents to produce
existing designs (plus some additional designs that potentially belong in
the same set). The second intents to produce novel things without paying
attention to existing designs. The former types of rules are illustrated using
squares and the latter triangles. A shape rule selected from this work is
given in Figure 4. All labels associated with the original shape rules are
omitted here or rather are substituted by a singular cross to denote the fix-
ing of the application of the rule in the Cartesian plane.

Fig4. A shape rule generating spiral patterns

Clearly this shape rule can be described in a variety of ways. An intuitive

reading could result in a description given by the rule schema x x + t(x).
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back 11

Here x is a right-angle triangle, t a similarity transformation including

scales, reflections and rotations about edges and/or vertices of the triangle
and t(x), a similar copy of the initial triangle. The context of the original
paper clearly suggests that the shape rule above (and the rest of the shape
rules in the paper) all illustrate aspects of an additive process in design.
For every shape in the left hand side of the rule, an isometric and/or scaled
copy of the shape is added in the right hand side in a specific spatial rela-
tion to the former one. The shape rule of the example shows a possible
way that a triangle x can be combined with a similar copy of itself t(x) so
that the short side of the large copy matches the long (hypotenuse) of the
original triangle. The description of this shape rule in terms of the schema
x x + t(x) is given diagrammatically in Figure 5.

Fig5. A description of the shape rule of Figure 4 in terms of the schema x x +

t(x)

The description of the shape rule in terms of a rule schema can easily be
cast in alternative ways. For example, the rule can be recast as x x + y,
whereas y some other shape arbitrarily related to the initial shape x. A pos-
sible interpretation of the added shape y could be a concave quadrilateral
carefully chosen to match two of its edges to the small and medium sides
of the initial triangle x. The description of the shape rule of Figure 4 in
terms of the schema x x + y is given diagrammatically in Figure 6.

Fig6. A description of the shape rule of Figure 4 in terms of the schema x x + y

It is interesting to note that the added shape y need not be a gestalt shape,
say, the concave quadrilateral above. The two longer lines of this quadri-
lateral could do it too. In this sense the emphasis seems to shift from the
addition of a closed polygonal shape to the addition of an open polygonal
shape y that does not share any edges or part of edges with the initial trian-
12 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

gle in the left hand side of the rule. A different way of casting this rule
could start from the selection of a point outside the initial triangle and its
joint with two lines y and t(y) with two of the vertices of the triangle in the
left hand side of the rule. The description of the shape rule of Figure 4 in
terms of the schema x x + y + t(y) is given diagrammatically in Figure
7.

Fig7. A description of the shape rule of Figure 4 in terms of the schema x x +

y+ t(y)

And this is not all. The rule can also be recast as p(x) x, for p(x) a part
of a shape x, and x a shape. In this case, the shape p(x) in the left hand side
of the rule is the right-angle triangle, and the shape x in the right-hand of
the rule is a shape that has the shape illustrated in the left hand side of the
rule as it s proper part. This rule schema can be alternatively cast as x
p-1(x), for p-1(x) the inverse of p(x), meaning that a shape x goes to a shape
with x as a part [3]. The algebraic notation of p-1(x) might alienate the vis-
ual thinkers but it provides a uniform treatment in the classification of the
basic schemata and consistency in notation too. In this case, the shape x is
the right-angle triangle and the p-1(x) is the shape that has the right-angle
triangle as its proper part. The description of the shape rule of Figure 4 in
terms of the schema x p-1(x) is given diagrammatically in Figure 8.

Fig8. A description of the set of shape rule of Figure 4 in terms of the schema p(x)
x or alternatively x p-1(x)

From rule schemata to shape rules

The trajectory from rule schemata to shape rules is straightforward too. In

this inquiry rule schemata are considered individually or in various combi-
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back 13

nations and/or compositions and shape rules are introduced that are re-
stricted in some way by a predicate and a set of assignments to pictorially
instantiate the rule schemata. Any rule schema from existing rule schemata
classifications could do to illustrate this inference. A nice set of rule sche-
mata to start the discussion is found in [4]. The rule schemata presented
there encapsulate a set of discrete processes in design that can be taken
individually, reversed when possible, and combined under addition and
composition. In the following example, a schema already encountered in
the previous section is selected to help us draw comparisons between the
exercise in the previous section and the exercise in this section.

x x + t(x)

This schema is perhaps the most frequent deployed in shape grammar

discourse: it specifies to add a transformed copy t(x) of a shape x in a spe-
cific way constrained by some predicate contained in the schema. The
schema could be intuitively cast as: Look at a design, find a part x that is
of interest to you, and repeat it in some way. More formally, the rule
schema could be recast as: look at a design A and if there is a transfor-
mation T such that the shape x is part of A, then replace the occurrence of
shape T(x) in A with the shape T(x) + T(t(x)) or better, with the shape
T(x+t(x)).
An indefinite number of shape rules can be defined based on this rule
schema. One way to look at the possible classification of shape rules fixed
within this rule schema is to look at the spatial relation between the initial
shape x and the transformed copy of the shape t(x), and the transformation
t under which the copy t(x) was constructed. The possible spatial relations
between the shape x and its copy t(x) can be classified in families of spatial
relations with respect to the dimensionality of the basic elements that com-
prise the spatial relation between the two shapes. For example, for a shape
x a right triangle and an isometric copy of itself t(x), there are four sub-
families of spatial relations that can be defined between the right triangle x
and its copy t(x): the two triangles x and t(x) may share the empty shape, a
point, a line or a plane. Clearly for each of these conditions there are many
more sub-conditions to discern with respect to the spatial transformations
that specify the spatial relation; i.e. whether the transformation is, say, a
translation, a rotation, a reflection, a glide reflection and so forth [15],
[16]. In all cases, these spatial relations provide the blueprints for the spec-
ifications of the shape rule in the rule schema. One instance of a shape rule
for each of these four families of spatial relations is shown in Figure 9.
Note that these four families of spatial relations can be nicely expressed
as intersections (.) of the basic spatial elements of the shapes, their bound-
14 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

aries and their boundary inverses too. More specifically, in the first spatial
relation, the intersection x.t(x) of the shapes x and t(x) is the empty shape.
In the second spatial relation the intersection b(x).b(t(x)) of the boundaries
of the shapes x and t(x) is a single point (basic element in the algebra U02).
In the third spatial relation the intersection x.t(x) of the shapes x and t(x) is
a single line (basic element in the algebra U12). And in the fourth spatial
relation, the intersection b-1(x).b-1(t(x)) of the inverses of the boundaries of
the shapes x and t(x), is a single plane (basic element in the algebra U22). It
should be noted that in the last case the shape b-1(x) is part of b-1(t(x)), a
condition that implies the definition of the part relation .

Fig9. Four shape rules defined with the rule schema x x + t((x) that satisfy the
predicate x is a 3-gon and t an isometric transformation

The families of shape rules that can be defined within the rule schema x
x + t(x) can be significantly extended with respect to the transformation t
that specified the geometry of the t(x). Figure 10 shows samples of the four
families of shape rules defined in this schema for t a similarity transfor-
mation, that is, a scale transformation combined with any isometric trans-
formation including any combinations of translations, rotations, and reflec-
tions.
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back 15

Fig10. Four shape rules defined with the rule schema x x + t((x) that satisfy the
predicate x is a 3-gon and t a similarity transformation

The next families of transformations that may be added on the similarity

transformations of the Euclidean space are the affine, linear, and topologi-
cal transformations of the so-called non-Euclidean space [17]. Figure 11
shows samples of four families of shape rules defined in this schema for t
an affine transformation, that is, a stretch/compress transformation com-
bined with any similarity transformation, and t(x) an affine copy of the
shape x.
16 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

Fig11. Four shape rules defined with the rule schema x x + t((x) that satisfy the
predicate x is a 3-gon and t an affine transformation

Still the expressive power of the rule schema can go beyond the transfor-
mational property of the spatial relations between the shape x and its copy
t(x). If for example, the shape x is defined as any n-gon, then a long list of
possible families of shapes can be used to define shape rules within this
rule schema, all very different from the ones seen so far. Within this
framework, spatial relations between say, squares, rectangles, parallelo-
grams, rhombi, kites, trapezoids, quadrilaterals of all sorts, and so forth,
are all spatial relations between a shape x and a shape t(x), for a shape x
and t(x) any of those and t a Euclidean or parametric transformation. Pen-
tagons and hexagons and heptagons and so forth, all wait to be tried for
they provide an inexhaustible really list of visual conditions to explore.
Figure 12 shows samples of the four families of shape rules defined in this
schema for x a square, t a scale transformation combined with any isomet-
ric transformations and t(x) a similar copy of x.
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back 17

Fig12. Four shape rules defined with the rule schema x x + t((x) that satisfy the
predicate x is a 4-gon and t a similarity transformation

Clearly, the predicate can be as elaborate as desired. The quest for provi-
sion of tools to facilitate the construction and instantiation of such spatial
relations is an ongoing project in the design of software packages geared
for visual composition. A comprehensive treatment of such rules and the
taxonomies they will produce as pictorial illustrations of schemata and
their products and sums is a welcome project for design inquiry. The goal
here was to suggest such an inquiry and illustrate some initial first steps
towards this direction.

Discussion

Shape rules and rules schemata are useful to work with because of the
compositional relations they foreground and the ways they facilitate dis-
tinct views of design inquiry. Both formal devices provide a rich repertory
of means to support expressive and productive calculation in design re-
spectively. And both provide powerful insight when they are contrasted
18 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

one against the other and suggest new ways of interpretation. Intuitively,
both types of formal devices are deployed in design to solve particular
kinds of problems in spatial composition: shape rules are mostly deployed
because of their visual specificity; rule schemata because of their concep-
tual generality. And still both shape rules and rule schemata are just alter-
native ways to describe the very same thing from a different vantage point.
An exciting aspect of the exercise of looking at existing shape rules and
attempting to infer rule schemata that these shape rules could be defined
in, is that such redescriptions of an existing rule, or set of rules, as predi-
cates and assignments in rule schemata, provide novel descriptions of the
given corpus of shape grammars. They also suggest interpretations of the
existing sets of grammatical rules that may be potentially diverse and dis-
tinct from those envisioned from the authors of the grammars. In this sense
this act of redescription of the pictorial rules of shape grammars as as-
signments in different schemata facilitates their novel re-appropriation and
re-usage in alternative contexts. A possible corollary of this conclusion is
that this shift in representation allows for the rules and the grammars to
emerge above specific domains such as residential architecture, public ar-
chitecture, ecclesiastical architecture, landscape architecture, ornamental
design, furniture design, product design, automobile design and any sub-
categories within these fields. Instead this account focuses on the composi-
tional schemata that can discursively explain what the shape rules do, and
the problems they address.
An exciting aspect of the exercise of looking at existing rule schemata
and attempting to define shape rules within them, is that such illustrations
of the schemata in terms of shape rule instances, provide concrete descrip-
tions of the given corpus of schemata. They may also suggest interpreta-
tions of these schemata that are potentially diverse, and even non-intuitive,
with respect to the schemata. In this sense this act of redescription of the
symbolic schemata as pictorial assignments facilitates their novel re-
appropriation and re-usage in alternative contexts.
The major goal in this work has been to look at the pair of the shape
rules and the rules schemata from either side foregrounding each in the re-
lation. This back-and-forth between show and tell is what this is all about.
In fact it is suggested here that such pictorial redescriptions of shape rules
as assignments in rule schemata, and instantiations of schemata in visual
symbols is the heart of design inquiry and that it should underlie any com-
putational framework for design.
A significant motivation underlying this work has been the systematic
inquiry on both aspects of rules so that they can both be implemented in
shape rules and/or in assignments in rule schemata and be freely instantiat-
ed, edited, used and tested in an automated computer setting. The technical
From Shape Rules to Rule Schemata and Back 19

problems associated with the design of a framework to implement shape

recognition and shape rules are formidable. A recent model based on an
underlying graph theoretical representation of shape has successfully man-
aged to address a great deal of these problems [18], [19]. The next step is
the seamless implementation of shape rules in terms of rule schemata in an
interactive framework that allows for the free definition of any shape rule
none so ever and the immediate testing of its expressive power in the de-
sign at hand.

References

1. Stiny G (1980) Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and

Planning B: Planning and Design 7(3), 343-351
2. Knight TW (1994) Transformations in Design: A Formal Approach to Stylis-
tic Change and Innovation in the Visual Arts. Cambridge University Press
3. Stiny G (2006) Shape, Talking about Seeing and Doing, MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, MA
4. Stiny G (2011) What Rule(s) Should I Use? Nexus Network Journal 13, 15
47
5. Langer S K (1957) Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of
Reason, Rite, and Art, Harvard University Press, Cambridge
6. Knight T (2000) Shape grammars in education and practice: history and pro-
spects, International Journal of Design Computing, 2, 67.
7. Economou A (2001) "Shape Grammars in Architectural Design Studio" in
Proceedings of the 2000 ACSA Technology Conference: Eds. W. Mitchell, J
Fernandez, ASCA, Washington DC 75-81
8. Kotsopoulos S (2005) Constructing design concepts: a computational ap-
proach to the synthesis of architectural form. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
9. Kotsopoulos S (2008) From design concepts to design descriptions, Interna-
tional Journal of Architectural Computing, n. 03, vol. 06, pp. 335-360.
10 Kotsopoulos S (2005) A computational framework of composition, Pro-
ceedings of the 23th Conference in Education and Research in Computer Aid-
ed Architectural Design in Europe: Digital Design: The Quest for New Para-
digms, ed. Duarte J P, Ducla-Soares G, Sampaio A Z, Technical University of
Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 515-536.
11. Stiny G (1979) Algorithmic Aesthetics: Computer Models for Criticism and
Design in the Arts, University of California Press
12. Krstic D (2001) "Algebras and grammars for shapes and their boundaries"
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28(1) 151 162
13. Krstic D (2005) "Shape decompositions and their algebras Cambridge Uni-
versity Press AIE EDAM, 19 (04) 261-276
 20 A. Economou and S. Kotsopoulos

14. Stiny G (1976) "Two exercises in formal composition" Environment and

Planning B: Planning and Design 1976 3 187-210
15. March L, Steadman P (1974) The Geometry of the Environment, MIT Press
16. Economou A (1999) "The symmetry lessons from Froebel building gifts", En-
vironment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26:1 75-90
17. Mitchell W (1990) The Logic of Architecture, MIT Press
18. Grasl T, Economou A (2013) Unambiguity: Difficulties in communicating
shape grammar rules to a digital interpreter in Computation and Perfor-
mance: Proceedings of the 31st eCAADe Conference, (eds) Stouffs, R and
Sariyildiz, S., Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, Vol. 2,
pp. 617-620.
19. Grasl T, Economou A (2013) "From topologies to shapes: parametric shape
grammars implemented by graphs" Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design 40(5) 905 922.

View publication stats